NURS 6052 Assignment Evidence-Based Project Part 2 Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews Essay

Sample Answer for NURS 6052 Assignment Evidence-Based Project Part 2 Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews Essay Included After Question

Your quest to purchase a new car begins with an identification of the factors important to you. As you conduct a search of cars that rate high on those factors, you collect evidence and try to understand the extent of that evidence. A report that suggests a certain make and model of automobile has high mileage is encouraging. But who produced that report? How valid is it? How was the data collected, and what was the sample size?

In this Assignment, you will delve deeper into clinical inquiry by closely examining your PICO(T) question. You also begin to analyze the evidence you have collected.

NURS 6052 Assignment Evidence-Based Project Part 2 Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews Essay

To Prepare:

Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
Develop a PICO(T) question to address the clinical issue of interest you identified in Module 2 for the Assignment. This PICOT question will remain the same for the entire course.
Use the key words from the PICO(T) question you developed and search at least four different databases in the Walden Library. Identify at least four relevant systematic reviews or other filtered high-level evidence, which includes meta-analyses, critically-appraised topics (evidence syntheses), critically-appraised individual articles (article synopses). The evidence will not necessarily address all the elements of your PICO(T) question, so select the most important concepts to search and find the best evidence available.
Reflect on the process of creating a PICO(T) question and searching for peer-reviewed research.

The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)

Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:

Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.
Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest.
Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Provide APA citations of the four relevant peer-reviewed articles at the systematic-reviews level related to your research question. If there are no systematic review level articles or meta-analysis on your topic, then use the highest level of evidence peer reviewed article.
Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples.

By Day 7 of Week 5

Submit Part 2 of your Evidence-Based Project.

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK5Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
Click the Week 5 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
Click the Week 5 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK5Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: NURS 6052 Assignment Evidence-Based Project Part 2 Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews Essay

Title: NURS 6052 Assignment Evidence-Based Project Part 2 Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews Essay

Introduction

The provision of safe, high quality and efficient care in nursing is important for the health and wellbeing of the patients. Often, nurses utilize practice interventions such as patient centeredness and evidence-based practices to ensure that the care needs of the patients are met. They also use the interventions to minimize the risk of occurrence of safety and quality issues in patient care. An example is the use of best practice interventions to ensure that the risk of medication errors in nursing practice is reduced. Despite the efforts adopted by nurses to ensure safety and quality, institutional and provider factors may still predispose patients to unintended safety and quality issues. For example, provider factors such as burnout due to the influence of institutional factors such as staff shortage may threaten the safety and quality of patient care. Therefore, this presentation examines the proposed intervention that can be used to reduce and prevent burnout among registered nurses.

Selected Clinical Issue

The selected clinical issue that relates to nursing practice is burnout among nurses. Burnout has been defined as the consequence of prolonged, persistent and chronic exposure of nurses to work-related stressors. The prolonged exposure to work stressors result in depersonalization, exhaustion, and reduced personal accomplishments. Nurses affected by burnout experience challenges in undertaking their clinical roles due to low levels of motivation and job satisfaction. Burnout among nurses has an adverse effect on the quality and safety of patient care (Ahola et al., 2017). For example, it increases the risk of medication errors by nurses due to lack of concentration in the care giving process. Burnout also causes low level of job satisfaction and motivation among the nurses. As a result, the rate of turnover among them increases significantly. In addition, the operational costs in healthcare organization rises due to the need for frequent hiring of new staffs to replace those who left the organization. Therefore, burnout among nurses should be addressed to ensure safety, quality and efficiency in healthcare organizations (Melnyk et al., 2020).

Development of PICOT

The developed question is: In acute care nurses, does the use of cognitive interventions result in the reduction of burnout levels when compared to no intervention, within eight month period?

I developed the above PICOT question through a number of steps. The first one was performing a clinical inquiry of the common issues that affect quality and safety of patient care in healthcare settings. I also utilized knowledge from my clinical experience to identify issues in practice that can be addressed by adopting evidence-based interventions. This led to the identification of the clinical issue of burnout in nursing. The second step entailed the determination of the populations that the problem affect. This led to the identification of nurses as the most prone group of professionals to be affected by burnout. The other step was performing a literature search of the databases to determine practice interventions that can be used to address the issue. This stage led to the identification of cognitive therapies as the most effective intervention to address burnout in nursing. The next step was determining a way in which I could determine the effectiveness of the intervention. As a result, I considered a comparative intervention to be no use of any approach to address the issue of burnout among nurses. I then developed the outcomes to be achieved by the implementation of the intervention and the timeline of evaluating its effectiveness.

Identified Articles

The database search led to the above articles that explore the effectiveness of cognitive interventions in reducing and preventing burnout among nurses.

´Ahola, K., Toppinen-Tanner, S., & Seppänen, J. (2017). Interventions to alleviate burnout symptoms and to support return to work among employees with burnout: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Burnout Research, 4, 1–11.

´Interventions to alleviate burnout symptoms and to support return to work among employees with burnout: Systematic review and meta-analysis. (2017). Burnout Research, 4, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2017.02.001

´Melnyk, B. M., Kelly, S. A., Stephens, J., Dhakal, K., McGovern, C., Tucker, S., Hoying, J., McRae, K., Ault, S., Spurlock, E., & Bird, S. B. (2020). Interventions to Improve Mental Health, Well-Being, Physical Health, and Lifestyle Behaviors in Physicians and Nurses: A Systematic Review. American Journal of Health Promotion, 34(8), 929–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117120920451

´Nayeri, N., Nukpezah, R., & Kiwanuka, F. (2021). Article no.AJRNH.71848 (1) Prof. Sharon Lawn, Flinders University, Australia. (2) Dr. Asmaa Fathi Moustafa Hamouda. Asian Nursing Research, 18–36.

´Zhang, X., Song, Y., Jiang, T., Ding, N., & Shi, T. (2020). Interventions to reduce burnout of physicians and nurses: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Medicine, 99(26), e20992. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000020992

Levels of Evidence

The study by Ahola et al., (2017) provides level I evidence. The study was a systematic review of randomized controlled trials without meta-analysis. The study by Melnyk et al., (2020) provided level I evidence too. It was a systematic review of randomized controlled trials without meta-analysis. The study by Nayeri et al., (2021) provided level III evidence. It was a systematic review of a combination of quasi-experimental, randomized controlled trials, and non-experimental studies. It also lacked meta-analysis. The study by Zhang et al., (2020) provided level II evidence. The study was a systematic review of quasi-experimental and randomized controlled trials with meta-analysis.

Strengths of Using Systematic Reviews

One of the strengths of using systematic reviews is the transparency in its processes. The processes of each of the phases of a systematic review are transparent, increasing the trust towards the obtained findings. Transparency also enables readers to determine the merits and demerits of the decisions that the authors made in synthesizing the data. The other benefit of using systematic reviews is that they provide comprehensive review of a topic. The use of multiple sources of data on a topic increases the relevance and implications of the data reported in a systematic review. The review of multiple studies also assists in the identification of gaps in research and practice. As a result, nurses can use the information from systematic reviews to inform their future research and practice. The last strength of systematic reviews is that it provides highly reliable results. The results have minimum bias due to the transparency in methods used. The focus on the results obtained in multiple studies also eliminates potential threats to validity and reliability of the obtained results.

References

Ahola, K., Toppinen-Tanner, S., & Seppänen, J. (2017). Interventions to alleviate burnout symptoms and to support return to work among employees with burnout: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Burnout Research, 4, 1–11.

Interventions to alleviate burnout symptoms and to support return to work among employees with burnout: Systematic review and meta-analysis. (2017). Burnout Research, 4, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2017.02.001

Melnyk, B. M., Kelly, S. A., Stephens, J., Dhakal, K., McGovern, C., Tucker, S., Hoying, J., McRae, K., Ault, S., Spurlock, E., & Bird, S. B. (2020). Interventions to Improve Mental Health, Well-Being, Physical Health, and Lifestyle Behaviors in Physicians and Nurses: A Systematic Review. American Journal of Health Promotion, 34(8), 929–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117120920451

Nayeri, N., Nukpezah, R., & Kiwanuka, F. (2021). Article no.AJRNH.71848 (1) Prof. Sharon Lawn, Flinders University, Australia. (2) Dr. Asmaa Fathi Moustafa Hamouda. Asian Nursing Research, 18–36.

Zhang, X., Song, Y., Jiang, T., Ding, N., & Shi, T. (2020). Interventions to reduce burnout of physicians and nurses: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Medicine, 99(26), e20992. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000020992

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name: NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following: · Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest. · Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest. · Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected. · Provide APA citations of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected. · Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples.	Points Range: 81 (81%) – 90 (90%) The presentation clearly and accurately identifies and describes in detail the chosen clinical issue of interest. The presentation clearly and accurately describes in detail the developed PICO(T) question. The presentation clearly and accurately identifies four or more research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected. The presentation clearly and accurately provides full APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including a thorough and detailed explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. The presentation includes specific and relevant examples that fully support the research. The presentation provides a complete, detailed, and accurate synthesis of two outside resources related to the peer-reviewed articles selected, and fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the presentation.	Points Range: 72 (72%) – 80 (80%) The presentation accurately identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest. The presentation accurately describes the developed PICO(T) question focused on the chosen clinical issue of interest. The presentation accurately identifies at least four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected. The presentation accurately provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an adequate explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. The presentation includes relevant examples that support the research presented. The presentation provides an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the peer-reviewed articles selected. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the presentation.	Points Range: 63 (63%) – 71 (71%) The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest. The presentation inaccurately or vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question focused on the chosen clinical issue of interest. The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies at least four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected. The presentation inaccurately or vaguely provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an inaccurate or vague explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. The presentation includes inaccurate or vague examples to support the research presented. The presentation provides a vague or inaccurate synthesis or outside resources related to the peer-reviewed articles selected. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the presentation.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 62 (62%) The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical issue of interest or is missing. The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question, or is missing. The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies less than four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected or is missing. The presentation inaccurately and vaguely provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an inaccurate and vague explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research, or is missing. The presentation includes inaccurate and vague examples to support the research presented or is missing. The presentation provides a vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources related to the articles selected and fails to integrate any resources to support the presentation or is missing.
Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided, which delineates all required criteria.	Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria.	Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive.	Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion are provided.
Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.	Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.	Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.	Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: NURS 6052 Assignment Evidence-Based Project Part 2 Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews Essay

Title: NURS 6052 Assignment Evidence-Based Project Part 2 Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews Essay

PICO(T) Question

What are the healthcare-associated infection risks for health when nurses get medical conditions after being exposed to patients as compared to getting them one hour before exposure?

How I Developed My PICO(T) Question

I developed my PICOT question from my clinical issue of interest.
As my clinical issue of interest addresses healthcare-associated infection risks for health when nurses get medical conditions after being exposed to patients, I had to integrate the comparative point of view to bring out the comparison perception.
‘Therefore, I brought in the perception of “before and after exposure to patients” perception to come up the comparison.
I also integrated “One hour” to capture time as PICOT question must comprise of time.

Article 1

Very little is known concerning the role of protective gear for nurses caring for patients exposed to the virus with coronavirus that emerged in China and since then has spread across the world.
The primary goal was to identify the clinical outcomes of nurses who cared for a patient with acute pneumonia before the diagnostic testing of COVID-19 patients.
COVID-19 is assumed to spread primarily through inhalation of droplets expelled through coughing, sneezing, and breathing; however, there are issues about potential airborne transmissions.

Article 2

The WHO revealed that a new coronavirus respiratory illness infection in 2019 is a Public Health Crisis of Global Concern.
According to Yasin et al. (2020), the global toll of this disease outbreak was expected to reach 40,665,438 cases reported and 1,121,843 mortalities by October 2020.
The nursing staff has been on the front lines of the COVID-19 health emergencies throughout this crisis, and therefore, they are at high risk of becoming infected and developing work burnout while still on work.
Yasin et al. (2020) examine the history of the COVID-19 pandemic, infection control practices in health facilities during the crisis, nurses’ infection risk, and many other health risks from fighting COVID-19 hurdles and suggestions for safeguarding nurses in this pandemic.

Article 3

The WHO revealed that a new coronavirus respiratory illness infection in 2019 is a Public Health Crisis of Global Concern.
According to Yasin et al. (2020), the global toll of this disease outbreak was expected to reach 40,665,438 cases reported and 1,121,843 mortalities by October 2020.
The nursing staff has been on the front lines of the COVID-19 health emergencies throughout this crisis, and therefore, they are at high risk of becoming infected and developing work burnout while still on work.
Yasin et al. (2020) examine the history of the COVID-19 pandemic, infection control practices in health facilities during the crisis, nurses’ infection risk, and many other health risks from fighting COVID-19 hurdles and suggestions for safeguarding nurses in this pandemic.

Article 4

Protective equipment seems to be an essential component of protecting against respiratory infections.
All nursing staff who access the lower pressure room with patients must wear an N95 facemask that has been adequately fit-tested (Ather et al., 2020).
The N95 breathing masks are custom-fit and therefore can filter particles as small as one micron in dimensions. According to studies, this mask seems to have a 95 percent filter efficiency by providing a tight facial shield and less than a 10-percentage leakage (Ather et al., 2020).
According to studies, this same mask seems to have a 95 percent filter efficiency by providing a tight facial shield and less than a 10percentage leakage.
- This was the very first analysis to consider if nonskid slipper socks worn in bed and also in contact with the hospital room floor are contaminated (Welle et al., 2019).
- The article’s primary objective was to see if bacteria were transferred from the soles of nonskid slipper that had touched the hospital floor and contaminated hospital bedsheets.
- This article simulated real patients walking on such floor while wearing socks and getting back on the bed while wearing the socks.
References

Ather, B., Mirza, T. M., & Edemekong, P. F. (2020). Airborne precautions. StatPearls [Internet].
Ng, K., Poon, B. H., Kiat Puar, T. H., Shan Quah, J. L., Loh, W. J., Wong, Y. J., … & Raghuram, J. (2020). COVID-19 and the risk to health care workers: a case report. Annals of internal medicine, 172(11), 766-767.
Welle, M. K., Bliha, M., DeLuca, J., Frauhiger, A., & Lamichhane–Khadka, R. (2019). Bacteria on the soles of patient-issued nonskid slipper socks: an overlooked pathogen spread threat?. Orthopaedic Nursing, 38(1), 33-40.
Yasin, S. M., Muzaini, K., Samsudin, E. Z., Selamat, M. I., & Ismail, Z. (2020). Are our healthcare workers well protected during COVID-19? Learning from current experiences and challenges. Journal of Clinical and Health Sciences, 5(2), 4-18.